Vivaldi's startup time

I know that the problem here is that I still don't own an SSD (poor), but then again, Vivaldi's startup time is almost as bad as Firefox's. Chrome is faster, Opera is a lot faster. Just a note for Vivaldi's team to work on. Although not sure if it's viable, consider I still run on an HDD, and how many people don't have an SSD nowadays?

I'm on an HDD and my startup is 7.5 seconds as compared to Opera's 3 seconds. That's not great, but it's not terrible, and if I had never compared them, it would never have occurred to me that Vivaldi was "slow" in any way. Plus, yes, the developers will be optimizing Vivaldi in pretty much every way imaginable, including startup time.

I'm on an HDD and my startup is 7.5 seconds as compared to Opera's 3 seconds. That's not great, but it's not terrible, and if I had never compared them, it would never have occurred to me that Vivaldi was "slow" in any way. Plus, yes, the developers will be optimizing Vivaldi in pretty much every way imaginable, including startup time.

It is actually quite terrible, especially if you have to keep starting it up. Waiting around for 7.5s is a lot.

I bet it's instant on SSD though, but anyway - just a note for Vivaldi's devs in case they're interested in supporting those few leftover HDD users.

Opera's startup is around 1.3s for me by the way, Chrome's around 3.7, Vivaldi's around 8.2. And Vivaldi's clean, whereas Opera and Chrome have a a few extensions.

Also on my computer (running from and SSD) Vivaldi can take over half a minute to start especially when loading up a previous session. Worst so far was a minute before the program window appeared anywhere (including task bar), and the whole time after clicking to start Vivaldi there was the audio from a YouTube video from the previous session playing. Start up behavior is far from optimized, really hoping for large improvements here as the beta rolls on, though the other performance issues (CPU thrashing when opening tabs etc.) are much more pressing and preventing me from going full time with Vivaldi.

Makes sense, I don't think I know anybody who's not a techie at least a little bit.

Yeah, I'd say a good 70% of my friends who are into gaming or computers have an SSD in their computer, but as a total of the people whose computer specs I know I'd say the figure is closer to maybe 5-10%.

I think you're greatly overestimating the effect that using an SSD will have with this.

Anyways, on a Windows 10 system with an HDD, startup time is ~4 seconds. That is with a handful of extensions installed.

I have used computers with SSDs, such things like browsers usually start in below a second, OS loads up in less than half a minute. I don't think I'm overestimating it, I'm just going by experience with many SSD'ed machines I had my hands on.

It's not all one thing or all another. My 11-year-old laptop that I have put an SSD in shows the UI in five seconds and the fully built page in ten. With this version, my much newer (and several times more powerful) desktop tower with HDD also shows the UI in 5 seconds, but the fully built page in 7.5.

So it's not one thing. GPU, Processing power, RAM capacity and speed also all figure in.

Speed - opening and handling IP-addresses - relies on end users hardware; how much RAM available and the power of the machine to process the request. The software - like a net browser - shall be pretty bloated to interfere with this. We are talking milliseconds, not seconds. A few browsers, like MS IE and Edge, simply call back home every request. Opera has started the same, and Firefox gave me the creeps by interfering even private browsing, wanting me to "share" wtf i did. Regarding Chrome - with forks - I won't even mention.

I've been tracking down web browser's behavior for years, and I'm impressed by various vendor's ingenuity. The will to invade end users privacy seem to be intractable. Vivaldi may be a running line. Speed still depends on hardware, handling (not too many) requests.

Speed - opening and handling IP-addresses - relies on end users hardware; how much RAM available and the power of the machine to process the request. The software - like a net browser - shall be pretty bloated to interfere with this. We are talking milliseconds, not seconds. A few browsers, like MS IE and Edge, simply call back home every request. Opera has started the same, and Firefox gave me the creeps by interfering even private browsing, wanting me to "share" wtf i did. Regarding Chrome - with forks - I won't even mention.

I've been tracking down web browser's behavior for years, and I'm impressed by various vendor's ingenuity. The will to invade end users privacy seem to be intractable. Vivaldi may be a running line. Speed still depends on hardware, handling (not too many) requests.

Unless you have 256MB, I don't think RAM is going to be a problem… I haven't seen a computer with <2GB (mostly 4GB) in a while now, and that's way more than enough to open up a browser.

Note on tracking, what do you mean about Firefox? It's actually quite privacy-friendly.

It's not all one thing or all another. My 11-year-old laptop that I have put an SSD in shows the UI in five seconds and the fully built page in ten. With this version, my much newer (and several times more powerful) desktop tower with HDD also shows the UI in 5 seconds, but the fully built page in 7.5.

So it's not one thing. GPU, Processing power, RAM capacity and speed also all figure in.

My GPU is good enough, trust me, so is my CPU.

When it comes to opening the window, my CPU usage does gradually jump to 95%+, and stays there for less than a second. Which means it's mostly HDD, although such CPU usage is a bit abnormal compared to other browsers. It renders relatively quickly, but also slower than other browsers.

I'm trying it as my main browser for a bit now, but it seems to be quite buggy when it comes to just daily things, or just lacks simple and intuitive functionality that browsers normally have. I've outlined them in the "feature request" section, both bugs and lacks of features.